Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31618055›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2019

Assessing Higher Order Language Processing in Long-Term Cochlear Implant Users.

William G Kronenberger, David B Pisoni

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Domains of Psychosocial Risk in School-Aged Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Differential At-Risk Pediatric Outcomes of Parental Sensitivity Based on Hearing Status.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

William G KronenbergerDepartment of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine,Indianapolis.
David B PisoniDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.
Indiana University Bloomington · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · US

Funding

Executive Functioning and Speech-Language Skills in Cochlear Implant UsersR01DC015257 · NIDCD · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI KRONENBERGER, WILLIAM G, PISONI, DAVID B · 2017 to 2021
$3.1M
Neurocognitive Processes in Deaf Children with Cochlear ImplantsR01DC009581 · NIDCD · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI PISONI, DAVID B · 2009 to 2013
$3.0M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC009581NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC015257
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to describe and explain individual differences in complex/higher order language processing in long-term cochlear implant (CI) users relative to normal-hearing (NH) peers. Method Measures of complex/higher order language processing indexed by the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Fourth Edition (CELF-4) Core Language subtests were obtained from 53 long-term (≥ 7 years) CI users aged 9-29 years and 60 NH controls who did not differ in age, gender, or nonverbal IQ. Vocabulary knowledge and fast, automatic language processing (rapid phonological coding, verbal rehearsal speed, and speech intelligibility) were also assessed. Results CI users showed weaker performance than NH controls on all CELF-4 Core Language subtests. These differences remained for Formulated Sentences and Recalling Sentences even when vocabulary knowledge was statistically controlled. About 50% of the CI sample scored within the range of the NH sample on Formulated Sentences and Recalling Sentences, while the remaining 50% scored well below the NH sample on these subtests. Vocabulary knowledge, rapid phonological coding, verbal rehearsal speed, and speech intelligibility were more strongly correlated with CELF-4 subtest scores in the CI sample than in the NH sample. Conclusions Weaknesses in complex, higher order language processing shown by a subgroup of CI users compared to NH peers may result from delays in fast, automatic processing of language. These at-risk domains of language functioning could serve as targets for novel interventions for deaf children who experience suboptimal spoken language outcomes following cochlear implantation.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsSpeechSpeech PerceptionAdolescentAdultChildFemaleHearing LossHumansLanguageMalePhoneticsSpeech IntelligibilityTreatment OutcomeVocabularyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31618055
PMCPMC7251594
OpenAlexW2980824785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.